Having gone to school does not make one's opinion on education policy valid. That's like telling a doctor one's diagnosis is valid because one has been to the doctor before.
As long as we discount the experts' opinions in order to give laypeople's opinions equal standing, we will continue to spiral out of control.
Unless you are an expert, your opinion does not deserve the same weight as the experts'.
Mr. Engel, you're missing the point. Free speech is protected from government hinderance. While Phil Robertson has the right to spew his racist and homophobic views, and even to do so in the cloak of the loving Christian God, no one - not you nor I nor the A&E network, is obligated to give him a bully pulpit.
Phil Robertson will continue to stubbornly defend his right to believe what he believes. The government is not stopping him. Therefore, his right to free speech has not been abridged.
"The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”, with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.
(1) The Romans kept slaves.
(2) We can keep slaves too."
"Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
I missed that this was a preemptive strike against alprova, who had made no previous post in this thread, so the ad hominem fallacy was not as specific as was perhaps necessary. The information about alprova's career was meant to poison the well. Shall I provide you with a more accurate link than wikipedia? I post once in a great while. If I needed an ego boost from the likes of this forum, I might post as often as, say, Jt6gR3hM, and I might change my screen name as often as well.
Hitler used the logic that since the US had also committed genocide, that the US could not in good faith condemn him. Your very first argument pointed the finger at Rachel Maddow, suggesting that she should not be able to condemn Mr. Paul's actions because of similar indiscretions.
Jt6gR3hM said "You’re simply being “too clever by half” in that you have misinterpreted common “ridiculing” of a web site blow-hard as something you wish to incorrectly make more complex to feed your need for an ego boost."
I post once in a great while. If I needed an ego boost from the likes of this forum, I might post as often as, say, Jt6gR3hM, and I might change my screen name as often as well.
And I am now finished feeding the troll.
Hitler defended his attempts to exterminate the Jews by recounting the systematic extermination of Native Americans by the United States. By the logic displayed above, that removes the onus from Hitler and proves the United States had no right to stop him.
What is perhaps most amusing to me is that the former monicker of one of the previous commenters matches the type of logical fallacy presented in the arguments: Tu Quoque. And, based off the unrelated attacks on alprova's career, we should expect your next handle to be Ad Hominem, right?
Perhaps the lesbian suicide rate is so high because of all the pious condemnation and judgement by men and women who base their opinions off of obscure, ambiguous references in an oft translated and re-translated 2,000 year old book.
If you are really looking for lines to cherry pick, how about, "Judge not lest ye be judged." If you feel that homosexuality is wrong, then don't be homosexual. Then go on with your life and let others go on with theirs. If God is truly anti-gay, then the 'sin' will be dealt with by God. Quit trying to do what you interpret to be God's job.
Perhaps it is the mindset of recent years in this country that we should be examining here. We live in one of the most divided periods in US history. Our media and government have created a culture of fear. Our schools have been ineffective in delivering the tools citizens need to determine fact from noise from doublespeak. The fact is that emotional people have great difficulty making rational decisions. While one can argue that this tragedy would not have been as bad without guns, @jesse makes the valid point that guns are not necessary to prevent psychopaths from wreaking havoc.
The promotion of absolutism by our media and leaders will likely play a role in this massacre. Whether it's learned that he had a political, religious, or some other agenda, you can bet he felt his actions were justified.
tenben62 said, "Can any PRIVATE organization not have to bow down to the PC mafia without being pummeled with the the "bigot" label, especially by people who apparently do not know that the "bigot" really is."
I suppose discrimination and bigotry is OK as long as it takes place under the cloak of a private entity? While I don't feel the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, should be compelled by government to change their values or policies, I do feel they should do so voluntarily.
The Boy Scouts' status as a "private organization" is a moot point in the overall argument. The fact is that the Boy Scouts operate in a very public arena and are, therefore, subject to public scrutiny and criticism. That the Boy Scouts continue to support and promote institutionalized bigotry is of importance because it is such a large organization and, as Jack_Dennis so eloquently points out, a ubiquitous part of American culture. As we fight to eliminate bullying in schools, this youth organization is essentially saying, "except for homosexuals."
Of course there is no civil rights issue here. Separate but equal worked just fine in the last century.
Do some research, TOES2800. Non-reproductive and homosexual sex is fairly common in nature. The argument that homosexual couples cannot reproduce is moot. The planet is overpopulated.
Also, animals cannot give informed consent to marry people. Human-animal marriage is a ridiculous, slippery slope argument.
Still waiting for a reasonable argument against gay marriage.
Nothing divides like those who think there is no other way than the one they want. Unless someone is forcing you into a gay marriage, no one is imposing on you. Don't like gay marriage? Then don't participate in a gay marriage. While I have asked before, I have yet to see a reasonable response to the query, "How exactly does gay marriage threaten or harm the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?"